web analytics
October 21, 2014 / 27 Tishri, 5775
At a Glance
Blogs
Sponsored Post
Meir Panim with Soldiers 5774 Roundup: Year of Relief and Service for Israel’s Needy

Meir Panim implements programs that serve Israel’s neediest populations with respect and dignity. Meir Panim also coordinated care packages for families in the South during the Gaza War.



Home » Blogs » CIFWatch »

The Obligation to Avoid Anti-Semitic Behavior

By comparison, whites who avoid evoking anti-black narratives and imagery in America, by and large don’t bemoan the so-called “restrictions” placed on their artistic or intellectual expression.
One of the winners in the 2006 Israeli Anti-Semitic Cartoons Contest that ran with the slogan: "We'll show the world we can do the best, sharpest, most offensive Jew hating cartoons ever published! No Iranian will beat us on our home turf!"

One of the winners in the 2006 Israeli Anti-Semitic Cartoons Contest that ran with the slogan: "We'll show the world we can do the best, sharpest, most offensive Jew hating cartoons ever published! No Iranian will beat us on our home turf!"

The Gerald Scarfe Sunday Times cartoon controversy has followed a familiar pattern, with some arguing that the depiction of the bloody trowel wielding Israeli Prime Minister torturing innocent souls – published on Holocaust Memorial Day – evoked the classic antisemitic blood libel, while others (including Guardian contributors and cartoonists) dissented, claiming that Scarfe had no racist intent and was merely critiquing the policies of a head of state who happened to be a Jew.

In response to some who have noted, in Scarfe’s defense, that he had previously depicted Syria’s Assad using a similar blood motif, Stephen Pollard of The JC aptly noted: “But there’s never been an anti-Alawite blood libel, and the context matters. The blood libel is central to the history of antisemitism.”

Though Scarfe may have indeed possessed no antisemitic intent whatsoever, Pollard is stressing that the effect of the cartoon simply can’t be ignored, and that historical context matters.

When we talk about antisemitism at the Guardian and ‘Comment is Free’ on this blog we’re not claiming to possess some sort of political mentalism – a piercing moral intuition which grants us access to the souls of their journalists and contributors.  Similarly, we’re not suggesting that we can ever tell with any degree of certainty that, when we argue that criticism of Israel crosses the line to antisemitism, the writer who’s the focus of our ire is necessarily haunted by dark Judeophobic thoughts.

Rather, many of us who talk seriously about antisemitism are skilled at identifying common tropes, narratives and graphic depictions of Jews which are based on prejudices, stereotypes and mythology and which have historically been employed by those who have engaged in cognitive or physical war against Jews.

Though I’m now an Israeli, an apt analogy on the moral necessity of understanding and being sensitive about the racist context of seemingly benign ideas can be derived from my experience growing up in America.

Those who grew up in the U.S. and inherited not the guilt but the moral legacy of slavery and segregation intuitively understand that we owe African-Americans an earnest commitment to strenuously avoid employing the linguistic, cultural and political currency of racism’s tyrannical reign.  Though race relations have matured immeasurably by any standard, and codified bigotry all but eliminated, there are, nonetheless, unwritten prohibitions against language which, even though often unintended, hearkens back to the past, evoking the haunting memory of the nation’s past sins.

In America, comedians don’t do black-face routines, in which white performers create a stereotyped caricature of a black person.  A mainstream newspaper wouldn’t publish a cartoon depicting an African-American as lazy and shiftless, nor would any publication present a black public figure (in any context) as  a boot licking  ’Uncle Tom‘.  And, someone using the N-word (in public or private) would be rightfully socially ostracized or at least stigmatized as crude racist.

Such political taboos in America have developed organically over time in response to a quite particular historical chapter, and are recognized by most as something akin to an unwritten social contract on the issue of race.  White Americans can not ever fully understand black pain, the learned cognitive responses from their collective consciousness, but it is reasonable of them to expect that we not recklessly tread, even if without malice, on their sacred shared memory.

Further, whites who honor this implied covenant – and avoid evoking such narratives and imagery – by and large don’t bemoan the so-called “restrictions” placed on their artistic or intellectual expression, or complain that African-Americans are stifling their free speech.  Rather, such unwritten rules, social mores and ethical norms about race are typically understood to represent something akin to a moral restitution for a previous generation’s crimes.  While in the U.S., the First Amendment affords legal protection to those who would engage in anti-black hate speech, it is largely understood that responsible citizenship often requires self-restraint – the greatness of a people measured by what they are permitted to do, but decide not to in order to preserve national harmony, what’s known in Judaism as Shalom bayit.  

When Jews talk seriously about antisemitism they are asking those who don’t wish to be so morally implicated to avoid needlessly poisoning the political environment which Jews inhabit.

They are appealing to the better angels of their neighbors’ nature by asking them not to carelessly conjure calumnies such as the “danger” to the world of Jewish power or conspiracies , Jews’ “disloyalty” to the countries where they live, that Jews share collective guilt for the sins of a few, that they’ve come to morally resemble their Nazi persecutors, or that Jews intentionally spill the blood of innocents.

In short, we are asking that decent people avoid employing canards which represented the major themes in Europe’s historic persecution of Jews, and which, tragically, still have currency on the extreme left, the extreme right, and, especially, in much of the Arab and Muslim world today.

The Scarfe/Sunday Times row is about more than the cartoon itself, and it is certainly not about the “right” to offend. It’s about sober but passionate pleas by a minuscule minority that decent people not afflict the historically afflicted, and to recognize their moral obligations to not provide aid and comfort to anti-Jewish racists.

We are asking genuine anti-racists to resist becoming, even if unintentionally, intellectual partners or political fellow travelers with those who trade in the lethal narratives and toxic calumnies associated with the resilient Judeophobic hatred which has caused us immeasurable pain, horrid suffering and indescribable calamities through the ages.

Visit CifWatch.com.

About the Author: Adam Levick serves as Managing Editor of CiF Watch, an affiliate of the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America (CAMERA), and is a member of the Online Antisemitism Working Group for the Global Forum to Combat Antisemitism. Adam made Aliyah from Philadelphia in 2009 and lives with his wife in Modi'in.


If you don't see your comment after publishing it, refresh the page.

Our comments section is intended for meaningful responses and debates in a civilized manner. We ask that you respect the fact that we are a religious Jewish website and avoid inappropriate language at all cost.

If you promote any foreign religions, gods or messiahs, lies about Israel, anti-Semitism, or advocate violence (except against terrorists), your permission to comment may be revoked.

2 Responses to “The Obligation to Avoid Anti-Semitic Behavior”

  1. The US Constitution's Bill of Rights is built on the foundation that where there are 'rights', there are also 'responsibilities'. Both require the presence of the other. Your remarks in the article are the direct explanation of those responsibilities in terms of speech. The other rights have similar responsibilities, including the rights of the press.

    We can say what we want, but we have the obligation to restrain ourselves from provoking and offending each other in the name of 'freedom of speech, for example.

    This lack of understanding in Americans has helped fuel the problems we have today with Americans' social behavior. It is simply not mentioned in the press, ever, by individuals, nor is it taught in schools. They only talk of rights. That is only half the story in behavior involving other people.

  2. The US Constitution's Bill of Rights is built on the foundation that where there are 'rights', there are also 'responsibilities'. Both require the presence of the other. Your remarks in the article are the direct explanation of those responsibilities in terms of speech. The other rights have similar responsibilities, including the rights of the press.

    We can say what we want, but we have the obligation to restrain ourselves from provoking and offending each other in the name of 'freedom of speech, for example.

    This lack of understanding in Americans has helped fuel the problems we have today with Americans' social behavior. It is simply not mentioned in the press, ever, by individuals, nor is it taught in schools. They only talk of rights. That is only half the story in behavior involving other people.

Comments are closed.

SocialTwist Tell-a-Friend

Current Top Story
Steve Emerson, author, journalist and terrorism expert.
Haaretz Smears American Terrorism Expert with Political Hit Job
Latest Blogs Stories
NY rally against Met Opera's 'Death of Klinghoffer' opera. Sept. 22, 2014.

Leon Klinghoffer’s daughters: “‘Klinghoffer’ is justified as ‘a work of art’…This is an outrage.”

eg

Kids bring in the light and let out the darkness through breathing exercises; it changes people.

Mir

If I make a million dollars in 2 weeks, how can I observe something like this and sit by quietly?”

Arab children look at pictures of two of a kind - Arafat and Barghouti.

Sometimes collective action against the heinous acts of the majority is not enough. The world should not only support the blockade of Gaza; it must enforce the dismantling of Hamas.

How long will it take for Israel and the Jewish World to admit that we are in very serious danger?

How do changes in technology affect the human life and our interactions with each other?

Palestinians (and Jordanians) often use the term “provocation” regarding Israeli action in Jerusalem

The zealots who engineered the ban have been publicly disgraced.

I am sick and tired of this one way street boycott! Time to boycott all products developed or invented in the Palestinian controlled areas! Let’s start with……umm….

Such an incredible miracle to have Israel, it’s crazy that every Jew isn’t clamoring to live here!

Driving is cultural. I come from a place with incredibly polite and safe drivers, unlike Israel.

My difficulties persisted until I met a beggar outside a restaurant after Tisha B’Av 12 years ago.

I’m more worried about the dangers of the Palestine virus than the Ebola one.

“Nonsense” seems to be the New York Times sense of balanced and accurate coverage.

The Palestinian terrorists could undergo career reorientation and take to cod fishing.

It’s very bad news indeed that the idea of terrorist release is once again under discussion.

More Articles from Adam Levick
.

Amnesty International:The crippling of the power station was “collective punishment of Palestinians”

Harriet Sherwood

The bill (by Senator Robert Menendez, along with 58 co-sponsors) has been accurately described by multiple media sources.

One Israeli media outlet steadfastly refuses to set the record straight.

You don’t even need to believe that antisemitism is at play to be contemptuous of the extraordinary myopia displayed in the Guardian report.

To learn more about the story we contacted Anne Herzberg, NGO Monitor’s legal advisor.

This [particular] Volunteer Soldiers’ Basic Training was extra special.

Pretending that the facts of the Holocaust are a matter of serious historical dispute is a classic rhetorical evasion.

The Palestinian Authority is condemning Jews who tour the holy site by suggesting that their visits represent a broader Israeli scheme to “Judaise” it.

Printed from: http://www.jewishpress.com/blogs/cifwatch/the-obligation-to-avoid-anti-semitic-behavior/2013/02/03/

Scan this QR code to visit this page online: